9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting and signing of the sale deed. Further, on perusal of the certificate issued by the revenue authority, it is clear that the impugned land is an agricultural land where agricultural operation was carried on till it was acquired. Therefore, the provisions of section 10(37) has application to the facts of the instant case and the amount received by assessee on acquisition of such land would not be includable in the total income. It is ordered accordingly. - ITA No 82/Coch/2017 (Asst Year 2009-10 ) - - - Dated:- 4-7-2017 - Shri George George K, Judicial Member Assessee By . Sh Mathew Joseph Revenue By . Sh A Dhanaraj, Sr DR ORDER George George K., This appeal, at the instanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of land (4.4 ares) in survey no. 205 of Palkulangara Village. She got the property as per partition deed no. 661/1971 dated 30.1.1971. On 3.1.2000 Special Tahsidar (LA) International Airport issued notice for the acquisition of the property. The possession of the property was taken on 29.7.2002 by awarding ₹ 4,80,398/-. The assessee did not file return of income as according to her the receipt is exempt. As the award amount was too low, the assessee filed petition for enhancing the compensation of the acquired property. While the case for enhancement was pending for disposal, the owner of the property Smt Jayalakshmi Vishwanathan expired on 3.2.2005 and the present assessee was impleaded as the Legal Heir of the deceased. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tural officer that was produced before the Income Tax Authorities is placed on record. It was further submitted that the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court relied by the CIT(A) has been reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1607/2010 dt. 11-01-2017. The ld DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 8 I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Hon ble Apex Court has overruled the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Balakrisghnan vs Union of India Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1607/2010 and Info Park Kerala vs ACIT (2008) 4 KLT 782 holding that negotiated sale after acquisition proceedings falls under compulsory acquisition under the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f compensation which has nothing to do with the acquisition. It is clear from the above that insofar as acquisition is concerned, the appellant had succumbed to the action taken by the Government in this behalf. His only objection was to the market value of the land that was fixed as above. To reiterate his grievance, the appellant could have either taken the aforesaid adjudicatory route of seeking reference under Section 18 of the LA Act leaving it to the Court to determine the market value. Instead, the appellant negotiated with Techno Park and arrived at amicable settlement by agreeing to receive the compensation in the sum of ₹ 38,42,489/-. For this purpose, after entering into the agreement, the appellant agreed to execute the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said case took the view that since the title in the property was passed by the land owners on the strength of sale deeds executed by them, it was not a compulsory acquisition. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid view. It is clear that but for Notification under Section 4 and Award under Section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have entered in to any negotiations for the compensation of the consideration which he was to receive for the said land. As far as the acquisition of the land in question is concerned, there was no consent. The appellant was put in such a condition that he knew that his land had been acquired and he cannot reiterate the same. The appellant, therefore, only wanted to salvage the situation by receivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
